Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US.

Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.

The fact you think a basic human right is politics shows how much of a problem it is.

Developed countries don’t do that.

It’s not as simple as that and you know it. There are upsides and downsides to both systems.

Personally, I’d be fine with universal healthcare on the state level, but not the federal. The fact that I have thoughts like that shows it’s not as simple as “durr everyone deserves healthcare.” Of course they do, but a universal healthcare system implemented poorly means that everyone gets really bad healthcare.

Universal healthcare is real and human. If we can't use an article to inform how we think about current problems, what's the point of it?

But the parent wasn't doing that. He was just taking the opportunity to dunk on his outgroup, by insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others (which you will see is patently untrue if you actually get to know those people, but I digress).

If the parent had instead chosen to give a thoughtful response focusing more on a positive message (say, exploring how we should do more to help others and how universal healthcare can be a facet of that), that would've been fine. But yet another post of "my outgroup is evil" doesn't teach us anything or lead to good discussion.

> insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others

Please educate me.

What possible reason is there to oppose universal healthcare?

Please keep in mind that factually it’s cheaper and results in better outcomes in every developed country in the world.

"please convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I have a very strongly held opinion that I consider to be an unshakeable fact, and by the way I'm asking you for evidence while providing none of my own. But it's a fact."

Just ask your favorite AI "How U.S. compares to others countries in healthcare metrics?" and you'll probably get a detailed list of how U.S. healthcare is more expensive than many other countries while ranking quite low in outcomes: life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality, chronic disease, ... (and also having part of the population out of the insurance network)

You are entitled to have whatever opinion you want on the matter, but that doesn't change the facts.

Sometimes people believe that if the US isn’t doing it already, there isn’t a better way, because somehow the best nation on the planet would be doing it already, it’s blind patriotism, rather than accept their might be better solutions. It why we care more about the flag or eagle than the US Constitution.

> people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others

Indeed that is the only explanation I have ever figured out.

That's not a very charitable interpretation of his comments.

> "... won't work well on mobile."

It seems to work fine on a scaled down desktop browser though, and the existing game UI should be suitable enough to fit on a standard phone screen, even if the text is a bit hard to read.

I think OP just made a small mistake with some of the CSS/JS that handles resizing the game window on mobile viewports. In some cases the buttons are outside of the game, and in some cases the game window isn't using up the full screen real estate.

You're missing the part in Christianity where he comes again, this time as triumphant victor who overcame all things to save the human family.

"> Dennis"

I assumed this was referring to a simple seated position, but I was incorrect. He had people in some odd poses for meditation. Thank you for posting the source.

More accurately, why WebKit was forked from khtml by Apple.

Sure. KHTML wasn’t embeddable outside KDE either until Apple made that happen.

That was always KHTML's goal, but Apple saw value in it for their business plan, just like it saw value in FreeBSD to reuse as their OS's base.

Sure. I wasn’t trying to say that Apple made WebKit from scratch, merely that they developed it into something easily embeddable. That very much was novel at the time.

Well, the author of the article found several people sharing experiences that they heard from other people that seem to give credence to that view.

Hard to know at this point if the problem is with specific judges, with the way the law is written, or if the presentation of these experiences are made to seem more numerous by the way the article presents the story. It also didn't cover instances of abuse coming from mothers, so there's at least a little bias in the story.

When we say "everyone in science", I think the part that people find scary is that it's hard to tell who is in science versus who is in 'science'.

Or in other words, it's hard to tell from the outside who really believes what you're stating and who believes it until it's inconvenient, or until it clashes with their personal ideology.

I'm not clear on what the second paragraph is adding to your example in the first.

It's a related and important historical fact that is not well known outside of Czechia. Why not share it with wider audience when given a chance.

Off topic: I just learned a couple weeks ago that Czechia and Czech Republic are both acceptable names for the country.

Hiring doesn't work like that. It's not like you glance at resumes then hire someone because what the paper says matches your job description. You spend a lot of time, if you're doing it right. Some resumes have everything you want, but aren't honest. Some resumes don't have everything, but they're pretty close, and worth the conversation. Some people seem perfect on paper but once you talk with them you realize (for whatever reason) that they don't fit. Even just a few applicants can take many hours of work before you can pick the one that fits best what you're looking for.

If you're a team of 5, handling 1,200 resumes, how much money are you expected to invest in this process? Does everyone take a week off billable work so you can find someone? Can you afford that? With only a team of 5, probably not.

We all want to feel like we're being treated well, but scolding someone because they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of adversarial spam they received for their job posting is a failure to put yourself in their shoes. Let's all be better people, here.

You and I both know the truth is in between both of our responses. It was worth discussing.